Multiplication of information sources lessened the loyalty of newspaper readers and increased the critical spirit and desire to participate in the editing process
While Folha’s circulation has been stagnating over the past three years, the number of readers who communicate with the newspaper through the ombudsman has been increasing interrupted.
In 2004, when I assumed this position, 7,286 readers sent criticism, complaints, commentary and suggestions. The average circulation that year was 307,700 copies. In 2005, with circulation at 308,200 copies per day, the number of messages jumped to 10,706 (47 0rowth). And in 2006, with circulation calculated (still not definitive) at 309,000 copies per day, the ombudsman received 13,280 messages – a 24 0ncrease from 2005 and 820ver 2004. I attribute the continuing growth to three principal factors:
1 – The 2006 agenda (presidential elections; political scandals; attacks in So Paulo by the Capital First Command prison gang, known as PCC; and the soccer World Cup);
2 – The expansion of the Internet and ease of access;
3 – A change in attitude by readers, increasingly better informed (news portals and blogs, TV news, cable TV, radio, cellular telephones), demanding and jealous of their right to information and criticism.
The second point, the explosion of the Internet, is surely the immediate cause of the phenomenon, the means by which the growing participation of readers was able to stun newspapers and journalists – stunned because participation is growing geometrically and because it is mostly questioning. This participation removes journalists from being the absolute source of news, a know-it-all, the only actor in journalistic production.
The role of the Internet in communication with the ombudsman has been growing over the past 10 years. In 1996, when the first readers began to send messages by email, the newspaper sold an average of 519,000 copies per day and the ombudsman received 6,201 messages, 19.320y Internet. Ten years later, in 2006, the newspaper’s circulation was 40 0.000000e+00ss, the number of messages more than doubled and the percentage via Internet jumped to 97.71%.
Of the messages received last year, 40% were criticism and protests, 8ontained suggestions, 1111ed60ointed out mistakes in information or grammar, and 11arried commentary about diverse topics. Only 311ed60raised the newspaper, which is understandable: the ombudsman is a means of defense for those who are dissatisfied or feel wronged.
The big topics could be divided into two groups: those which provoked only commentary and analysis by readers (such as the PCC attacks, the World Cup, the Gol airplane accident and airport crisis that followed) and those which generated criticism concerning coverage by Folha (mainly elections, political scandals and Middle East).
There are relevant data which merit careful analysis by the newspaper: 1,062 messages believed that the newspaper, contrary to what it says, is partial in its political coverage (not restricted to pages in the national section). It is a number that the newspaper could be tempted to consider small considering its circulation and unimpressive after the Datafolha survey in September in which 700f subscribers who live in the So Paulo metropolitan area believe that Folha did not favor any of the candidates in last year’s presidential election.
But, for the volume of messages that I receive, I consider the number impressive and meriting attention and reflection by the newspaper. They are readers who participate in the life of the nation and newspaper.
It is good that the newspaper and its journalists become accustomed to the volume of messages via Internet and criticism they carry. They are here to stay. The relationship of readers to newspapers (and I don’t mean only Folha) has always been affectionate and loyal. They have been accustomed to knowing the editorial line, the columnists, the sections, the mannerisms and soul of the newspaper they chose that was practically the only channel for information they had. Citizens choose a newspaper for one of these reasons, staying with them for decades and passing the reading habit along to their children.
This loyalty has been broken. Readers today have many sources of information – and can, furthermore, more appropriately compare the quality of verification and editing. It is easier for them to make demands on news organizations they choose. It’s a love-hate relationship.
The big challenge for newspapers is to maintain these readers and open themselves for the generations that are forming other habits, but they share the critical spirit and uncontrollable impulse to participate.
EVALUATION Letters to the Editor
Correspondence to “Letters to the Editor” has not grown in the same proportion as that received by the ombudsman, but it also has been growing. In 2004 there were 31,455 messages; in 2005, there were 33,005 (4.7 0rowth); and now, in 2006, 34,239 (3.7% more).
The main topics covered were the presidential elections, political scandals, the administration of President Luiz Incio Lula da Silva, the PCC attacks and the World Cup.
The big problem in “Letters to the Editor,” along with what the September graphic makeover did not resolve, is space. Use of messages remains low: only 9.170f letters were published in 2004; this rate fell to 8.25 0n 2005 and ended 2006 with 8.78%. In other words, only one in 12 letters received was published last year.
The newspaper created an extension of the section in its electronic version (www.folha.com.br/paineldoleitor), but it’s not the same. The complaint remains that it is difficult to publish a letter. Frequently the space in the letters is occupied by press advisers and well-known people, leaving out the letters from “common people.” In 2006, I received 155 messages about the section, half of them containing protests about the criteria of editing the newspaper.
Readers want more space (on paper) to comment about topics of the day and to express themselves. It is legitimate, and the newspaper should try to help them, even for market reasons.
Translation by John Wright
